The Landscape Analysis of Subnational Private Investment in Infrastructure

Executive Summary

Open data on privately financed infrastructure projects is limited but would be useful. The World Bank’s Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) Database shows some of the promise of open data to inform local governments.

Key Takeaways

  1. Private investment in national government projects vastly outweighs subnational governments.
  2. National summaries hide distinctive characteristics of private investment in local infrastructure.
  3. Only a few countries have projects backed by commercial debt, notably India and Brazil.
  4. Private investment in energy generation at the local level has made the transition to renewable energy but coal still dominates overall.

The analysis in this report highlights where there are distinctive characteristics in private investment in local governments, but does not attempt to identify the causes or impacts of those differences. Further research will be needed to develop policy responses.

Introduction

The World Bank estimates that the world has USD 94 trillion in unfunded infrastructure needs in the next 20 years.1 The increased infrastructure needs are being driven by population growth, urbanization and the challenge of meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. Climate change is also driving infrastructure needs by requiring the rapid replacement of carbon-emitting infrastructure and rebuilding infrastructure damaged through climate change-driven extreme weather events and sea-level rise.2

Increasing private investment in infrastructure has been a goal of governments and international institutions such as the World Bank, OECD, and bilateral development banks.3 The World Bank’s Public Private Partnership Group has published a dataset of infrastructure projects that are either completely or partially privately funded.4 There is very little open data about privately funded projects compared with projects funded by governments, development banks, or aid agencies. The Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) Database stands out for the large number of projects and the depth of information available about each project. The World Bank has published reports analyzing the data through country, sector, and topical lenses, but does so at the country level.

The dataset includes municipal and provincial governments’ projects, which allows for subnational infrastructure projects to be disaggregated to identify the characteristics of private investment below the national level. As this paper will show, private investment in local and provincial governments is different than in national governments, which makes disaggregated analysis crucial to accurately describing the financing landscape and finding opportunities for policymakers to make improvements in infrastructure financing.

There are two major challenges that this landscape analysis hopes to inform. finding enough financing for badly needed infrastructure, and directing private investment into climate-resilient and low carbon infrastructure rather than high carbon-emitting infrastructure. For some projects, the data in the PPI Database is detailed enough to classify it as either low or high carbon, particularly for energy generation and transports, but others require more detail. The Public Private Partnership Group released a report in 2018 finding that there has been a partial shift towards renewables, primarily in the form of hydropower in energy, but road projects are still dominant in transport.5

Private Investment by Year

The PPI database has 335,950 infrastructure projects that were done by either local/municipal or state/provincial governments. Even though the focus of this paper is municipal governments, state/provincial projects are included, but disaggregated because of the responsibilities of municipal and provincial governments vary between countries.

Data for local governments go back to 1992, provincial governments to 1985, and national governments to 1930. This paper only looked at projects since 1992 to make comparisons between different government types. The vast majority of private investment goes to national governments. Private investment in local projects is growing, with a large uptick since 2010. Investment in State/Provincial infrastructure peaked in 2010 and has declined to a lower level than investment in local governments.

Investment by Government Type

Government Projects Total Investment (Millions USD) Private Investment (Millions USD) Percent of Private Investment
Local/Municipal 1,747 143,219 125,900 9.7%
State/Provincial 1,069 217,386 2e+05 15.6%
National 4,381 1,130,064 974,797 74.7%

Data quality and completeness is a challenge, particularly when focused on local or municipal projects. The amount of missing data is lowest for national government projects and highest for local or municipal government projects.6

Data Quality

Government Type Number of Projects Cells Missing Values Misssing Values Per Project Percent Missing
National 4,381 27,719 6.3 12.6%
State/Provincial 1,069 7,048 6.6 13.2%
Local/Municipal 1,747 13,914 8.0 16%

The sectors included in the PPI Database are energy, information and communication technology, municipal solid waste, transport, and water and sewerage. Private investment into energy and transport accounts for over 90% of private investment. Private investment is that the majority of all financing for all sectors.

Sector Summary

Primary sector Projects Percent of Projects Total Investment (Millions USD) Private Investment (Millions USD) Percent of Private Investment Tota lDebt Funding (Millions USD)
Energy 4,265 59.3% 211.2 182.8 54.4% 214.1
ICT 126 1.8% 362.6 260.6 2.2% 157.6
Municipal Solid Waste 333 4.6% 85.3 83.9 2.1% 55.7
Transport 1,526 21.2% 385.7 345.0 36.9% 298.9
Water and sewerage 947 13.2% 85.8 75.7 4.3% 118.1

Project Types

The PPI Database classifies projects by Type, corresponding to greenfield, brownfield, management or lease contract or divestiture and subtype, which includes more information about the concession type.

Build operate and transfer (BOT) is the most common type of concession for local governments, comprising 34.8% of all projects. The next most common is rehabilitate, operate and transfer, which only comprise 7.9%. For provincial governments, build, rehabilitate, operate, transfer of brownfield assets is the most common type of concession at 32.4%, followed by build, own, operate at 25.9% and build, operate, transfer at 21.5%.

For time-limited concessions, the average length is 27 years and doesn’t vary between types of government. Permanent private ownership is least common for local governments.

Local/Municipal

Project Types - Local/Municipal

Type of PPI Subtype of PPI Total Energy ICT Transport Waste Water
Brownfield Build, rehabilitate, operate, and transfer 145 3 0 14 1 127
Brownfield Other 1 0 0 0 1 0
Brownfield Rehabilitate, lease or rent, and transfer 2 0 0 0 0 2
Brownfield Rehabilitate, operate, and transfer 224 36 0 32 1 155
Divestiture Full 6 5 0 0 0 1
Divestiture Partial 27 12 1 3 0 11
Greenfield project Build, operate, and transfer 983 407 1 131 109 335
Greenfield project Build, own, and operate 80 33 0 2 34 11
Greenfield project Merchant 1 0 0 0 1 0
Greenfield project Other 20 4 0 1 14 1
Management and lease contract Lease contract 41 7 0 3 0 31
Management and lease contract Management contract 150 5 0 6 88 51
Note:
Removed 67 projects classified as Not Available.

State/Provincial

Project Types - State/Provincial

Type of PPI Subtype of PPI Total Energy ICT Transport Waste Water
Brownfield Build, rehabilitate, operate, and transfer 346 127 0 189 0 30
Brownfield Rehabilitate, lease or rent, and transfer 4 0 0 3 0 1
Brownfield Rehabilitate, operate, and transfer 94 2 0 69 0 23
Divestiture Other 1 1 0 0 0 0
Divestiture Partial 33 26 0 3 0 4
Greenfield project Build, lease, and transfer 4 0 0 4 0 0
Greenfield project Build, operate, and transfer 230 76 0 104 8 42
Greenfield project Build, own, and operate 277 272 0 0 0 5
Greenfield project Merchant 24 23 0 1 0 0
Greenfield project Other 10 0 0 0 10 0
Management and lease contract Lease contract 8 1 0 4 0 3
Management and lease contract Management contract 26 0 0 7 8 11
Note:
Removed 12 projects classified as Not Available.

National

Project Types - National

Type of PPI Subtype of PPI Total Energy ICT Transport Waste Water
Brownfield Build, rehabilitate, operate, and transfer 1145 712 2 422 0 9
Brownfield Other 3 3 0 0 0 0
Brownfield Rehabilitate, lease or rent, and transfer 53 5 0 48 0 0
Brownfield Rehabilitate, operate, and transfer 212 41 1 168 0 2
Divestiture Full 169 153 5 9 1 1
Divestiture Partial 301 250 36 14 0 1
Greenfield project Build, lease, and transfer 12 10 0 2 0 0
Greenfield project Build, operate, and transfer 900 625 15 225 1 34
Greenfield project Build, own, and operate 1261 1227 13 14 1 6
Greenfield project Merchant 100 52 44 4 0 0
Greenfield project Other 2 0 0 1 1 0
Greenfield project Rental 58 58 0 0 0 0
Management and lease contract Lease contract 36 7 0 12 0 17
Management and lease contract Management contract 94 27 8 26 0 33
Note:
Removed 12 projects classified as Not Available.

Private Investment by Sector

Private investment is highly sector-specific. Energy receives the most private investment, followed by transport. Local governments stand out because their transport projects receive the most private investment, rather than energy. Water and waste management are significant sectors for local governments but negligible for the others. Water and sewerage and municipal solid waste are the only sectors where local governments receive more private investment than provincial or national governments.

Each sector is split up into more detailed categories that are explored further below.

Local/Municipal

Private Investment by Sector - Local/Municipal

State/Provincial

Private Investment by Sector - State/Provincial

National

Private Investment by Sector - National

Energy

Energy is a significant sector for all levels of government, but they invest in very different technologies. Coal receives the most investment at the national and provincial levels but solar photovoltaics are the most invested in at the local level. The top four generation technologies receiving private investment at the local level are all renewables, though waste to energy and biomass can have harmful local polluting effects and are not carbon neutral.

One of the most notable aspects of energy generation is a massive spike in private investment in coal at the provincial level.

Local/Municipal

Top 5 Energy Generation Technologies - Local/Municipal

Energy Generation Investment by Year - Local/Municipal

State/Provincial

Top 5 Energy Generation Technologies - State/Provincial

Energy Generation Investment by Year - State/Provincial

National

Top 5 Energy Generation Technologies - National

Energy Generation Investment by Year - National

Transport

All transportation investment is dominated by highways. Local governments had the largest share of investment rail. 24% of private investment went to local passenger rail, while 15% did for provincial governments and less than 4% for national governments. There is no category for road-based public transport like bus rapid transit (BRT) so it is unclear whether any of the road spending could be considered low carbon. Air travel is the most carbon-intensive form of transportation, and airports are the second-highest facility type for private investment at the national level, accounting for over 20% of private investment.

Local government transport projects are significantly more reliant on debt capital than provincial or national government projects. Provincial government projects are the smallest and national projects are the largest, with local projects falling in between.

Average Transport Project Financing Size

Local/Municipal

Transport Facility Types - Local/Municipal

Segment Subsector Projects Private Investment (Millions USD) Percent
Highway Roads 82 19,193 42.65%
Local Passenger/Light rail Railways 9 10,780 23.95%
Terminal Ports 58 4,322 9.6%
Freight and passenger Railways 1 2,515 5.59%
Bridge Roads 10 2,447 5.44%
Terminal Airports 8 1,707 3.79%
Fixed Assets Only Railways 3 1,438 3.2%
Runway and terminal Airports 6 876 1.95%
Fixed assets and passenger Railways 1 510 1.13%
Note:
Removed 6 segment types that received less than 1% of transport investment.

State/Provincial

Transport Facility Types - State/Provincial

Segment Subsector Projects Private Investment (Millions USD) Percent
Highway Roads 250 48,306 60.17%
Local Passenger/Light rail Railways 12 12,013 14.96%
Terminal Ports 66 9,302 11.59%
Fixed assets and passenger Railways 5 3,108 3.87%
Bridge and highway Roads 10 1,844 2.3%
Freight Railways 4 1,781 2.22%
Channel dredging Ports 2 934 1.16%
Note:
Removed 7 segment types that received less than 1% of transport investment.

National

Transport Facility Types - National

Segment Subsector Projects Private Investment (Millions USD) Percent
Highway Roads 450 161,665 45.57%
Runway and terminal Airports 67 69,179 19.5%
Terminal Ports 162 27,442 7.74%
Fixed assets and freight Railways 88 17,434 4.91%
Bridge, highway, and tunnel Roads 6 13,926 3.93%
Local Passenger/Light rail Railways 9 12,729 3.59%
Fixed assets, freight and passenger Railways 47 10,110 2.85%
Bridge and highway Roads 41 8,459 2.38%
Channel dredging and terminal Ports 15 6,909 1.95%
Terminal Airports 19 6,728 1.9%
Regional Passenger Railways 2 5,910 1.67%
Note:
Removed 13 segment types that received less than 1% of transport investment.

Water and Sewerage

Total investment in water and sewerage is highest at the local government level and lowest for national governments. Projects are classified as either in water utilities, treatment plants, or combined water utility and treatment plants. Water utilities receive the most private investment

Despite the majority of private investment going to local government projects, they have the smallest average size when looking at either total investment or private investment. National government projects are the largest.

Average Water and Sewerage Project Financing Size

Local/Municipal

Water and Sewerage Facility Types - Local/Municipal

Water and Sewerage Investment by Year - Local/Municipal

State/Provincial

Water and Sewerage Facility Types - State/Provincial

Water and Sewerage Investment by Year - State/Provincial

National

Water and Sewerage Facility Types - National

Water and Sewerage Investment by Year - National

Solid Waste

Local governments receive over 85% of private investment in solid waste projects. Treatment and disposal receive the most investment for all governments. Project size is similar for all types of government, but local government projects have higher levels of debt financing than the others.

Average Water and Sewerage Project Financing Size

Local/Municipal

Solid Waste Facility Types - Local/Municipal

Water and Sewerage Investment by Year - Local/Municipal

State/Provincial

Solid Waste Facility Types - State/Provincial

Water and Sewerage Investment by Year - State/Provincial

National

Top 10 Solid Waste Facility Types - National

Water and Sewerage Investment by Year - National

Private Investment by Region

Levels of investment by government type look very different by region. In particular, East Asia and the Pacific sees higher levels of investment in local/municipal governments. Almost 30% of private investment into the region goes to local governments, which is over four times higher than any other region. Subsaharan Africa is the region with the smallest share of private investment in local governments receiving only 0.4% of private investment.

Governments in South Asia capture the highest share of private money flowing to state and provincial governments. They receive 48% of private investment while local governments that region only receive 2%. Europe and Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, East Asia and Pacific all receive less private investment into state/provincial governments than into local/municipal governments.

There are no regions where national governments receive less than 50% of private investment.

Local/Municipal

Private Investment by Region - Local/Municipal

State/Provincial

Private Investment by Region - State/Provincial

National

Private Investment by Region - National

Private Sponsors

Every project in the PPI Database has sponsors which are “private entities that together have an equity participation of at least 20% in the project contract for Greenfields, brownfields, and management and lease contracts, and 5% for divestitures.”7 Because the PPI Database only includes infrastructure projects with private participation, every project has private sponsors. The number of private sponsors involved in a project ranges from 1 to 4.

The country that a sponsor is based in is recorded for most sponsors, which allows for the international aspect of private infrastructure investment to become visible. China, India, and Brazil, which dominate private investment have interesting differences. China has the most sponsors headquartered there at the local level, and the top sponsors by investment at the local level are dominated by fifteen Chinese firms involved in solid waste, water and sewerage, and energy projects. The greatest number of sponsors involved at the state/provincial level are headquartered in India and eleven of the top firms by investment are Indian energy or transport companies. Brazil has the greatest number of sponsors active at the national level headquartered in it. Seven Brazilian firms are in the top 20 by investment, outnumbered by firms from wealthy countries like the United States, France, Spain, Italy, and Portugal.

Local/Municipal

Location of Sponsor HQs - Local/Municipal

Top 20 Local/Municipal Sponsors

Name Country Sector Investment (Millions USD) Projects
China Everbright International China Municipal Solid Waste 11259 117
Beijing Sound Environment Industry Group China Water and sewerage 6248 66
Xinao Gas Holdings Limited China Energy 4395 57
Kaidi Electric Power China Energy 3900 39
Grupo Equipav Brazil Water and sewerage 3552 43
Anhui Guozhen Environmental Protection Science & Technology Co Ltd China Water and sewerage 3109 32
China Windpower Group Limited China Energy 2840 32
Wah Sang Gas Holdings Limited China Energy 2559 26
Veolia Environnement France Water and sewerage 2287 38
China Gas Holdings Limited China Energy 2104 26
Panva Gas Holding China Energy 1820 23
Chongqing Kangda Environmental Protection Co Ltd China Water and sewerage 1790 18
Hong Kong and China Gas Company China Energy 1700 26
Anhui Shengyun Machinery Company Limited China Energy 1655 17
Beijing Origin Water Technology Co China Water and sewerage 1446 17
Odebrecht SA Brazil Water and sewerage 1434 22
Beijing Herocan Environmental Engineering Tech Co Ltd China Water and sewerage 1280 13
SUEZ France Water and sewerage 1208 34
Cab Ambiental Brazil Water and sewerage 1160 14
NWS Holdings Limited China Water and sewerage 805 35

State/Provincial

Location of Sponsor HQs - State/Provincial

Top 20 State/Provincial Sponsors

Name Country Sector Investment (Millions USD) Projects
Companhia de Concessoes Rodoviarias Brazil Transport 2233 24
Reliance ADA Group India Energy 1414 21
Pampa Energia SA Argentina Energy 1372 18
Greenko Group India Energy 1300 13
Adani Group India Energy 1276 15
Tata Enterprises India Energy 1216 17
Renew Power Limited India Energy 1200 12
Odebrecht SA Brazil Transport 1153 13
Lanco Group India Energy 1117 15
Gas Natural Spain Energy 1045 34
Dilip Buildcon Limited India Transport 1000 10
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd India Energy 1000 10
Essar Group India Energy 900 10
Compania General de Electricidad Chile Energy 891 30
Larsen & Toubro Limited India Transport 651 10
Mitsui Japan Energy 595 26
Andes Energia Plc United Kingdom Energy 510 10
Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services India Transport 426 11
Grupo Equipav Brazil Transport 350 14
Toniolo Busnello SA Brazil Transport 250 10
Jose Cartellone Construcciones Civiles SA Argentina Energy 210 22
Camuzzi Gazometri SpA Italy Energy 150 14
Empresas Publicas de Medellin Mexico Water and sewerage 21 11

National

Location of Sponsor HQs - National

Top 20 National Sponsors

Name Country Sector Investment (Millions USD) Projects
Grupo Energisa Brazil Energy 9,000 90
CPFL Energia United States of America Energy 8,940 97
AES Corporation United States of America Energy 6,583 115
SUEZ France Energy 5,784 82
Enel SpA Italy Energy 5,608 67
America Latina Logistica Brazil Transport 3,500 35
Iberdrola SA Spain Energy 3,500 74
Electricidade de Portugal SA Portugal Energy 3,402 47
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce SA Brazil Transport 3,070 69
Interconexion Electrica SA Colombia Energy 2,144 36
Sempra Energy International United States of America Energy 1,966 43
Abengoa Spain Energy 1,870 32
Pampa Energia SA Argentina Energy 1,864 28
Endesa Spain Energy 1,851 41
Alusa Brazil Energy 1,514 27
Enersis Chile Energy 1,320 39
Construtora Andrade Gutierrez Brazil Energy 1,010 40
Companhia Siderurgica Nacional SA Brazil Transport 750 32
Techint SA Argentina Energy 95 37
Previ Brazil Energy 60 64

Commercial Banks

Overall, 10% of projects have debt financing from commercial banks, but local/municipal governments see the least for every sector. for local/municipal projects, transport has the highest rate of commercial debt financing at just over 3%. In contrast, at the state/provincial level over 18% of energy projects have commercial debt financing and over 22% of national level, solid waste projects do.

The country of commercial banks is not recorded in the database, but whether they were national or international is included. As might be expected, the percentage of debt financing from international banks varies by country, but it also varies the level of government, indicating that access to domestic private debt capital is different for different types of government within the same country.

Percent of Commercial Debt Capital from International Banks

Country Percent for Local/Municipal Percent for State/Provincial Percent for National
Argentina 59.1% NA 68.8%
Brazil 3% 0% 27.8%
China 35.5% 100% NA
Colombia 100% NA 61.5%
India NA 14.9% 6.9%
Indonesia 0% NA 100%
Malaysia NA 100% 87.9%
Mexico 100% 89.6% 84.6%
Nigeria NA 100% 71.7%
Peru 100% NA 84.1%
Philippines 0% NA 38.9%
Russia 19.3% 0% 27.1%
Turkey 100% NA 10.1%

Local/Municipal

Primary sector Total Projects Projects with Commercial Debt Financing Percent
Energy 539 6 1.11%
ICT 2 0 0%
Municipal Solid Waste 289 3 1.04%
Transport 192 6 3.12%
Water and sewerage 725 3 0.41%

Share of International Commercial Debt Financing - Local/Municipal

State/Provincial

Primary sector Total Projects Projects with Commercial Debt Financing Percent
Energy 531 98 18.46%
Municipal Solid Waste 35 2 5.71%
Transport 384 16 4.17%
Water and sewerage 119 2 1.68%

Share of International Commercial Debt Financing - State/Provincial

National

Primary sector Total Projects Projects with Commercial Debt Financing Percent
Energy 3,195 423 13.24%
ICT 124 4 3.23%
Municipal Solid Waste 9 2 22.22%
Transport 950 141 14.84%
Water and sewerage 103 5 4.85%

Share of International Commercial Debt Financing - National

Appendix 1: Country Summaries

Country Total Projects Local/Municipal Projects State/Provincial Projects Private Investment (Millions USD) Sponsors Sponsor Investment (Millions USD) Commercial Bank Financed Projects Commercial Debt Financing (Millions USD)
Afghanistan 4 0 0 86 0 NA 0 NA
Angola 10 1 0 417 3 40 0 NA
Albania 21 3 0 2,805 5 500 1 11
Argentina 371 16 99 27,485 43 7,579 37 1,594
Armenia 29 1 3 2,236 0 NA 1 53
Azerbaijan 1 1 0 0 1 200 0 NA
Benin 2 0 0 825 0 NA 0 NA
Burkina Faso 5 0 0 651 1 30 0 NA
Bangladesh 62 1 0 5,122 21 2,969 11 422
Bulgaria 89 14 0 7,391 8 1,020 8 368
Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 1 0 1,296 0 NA 2 46
Belarus 9 0 0 3,961 0 NA 0 NA
Belize 1 0 0 62 1 100 0 NA
Bolivia 3 0 0 237 0 NA 0 NA
Brazil 1568 161 194 285,998 256 61,334 88 7,626
Bhutan 2 0 0 70 3 100 0 NA
China 1352 1215 84 107,588 336 89,480 15 282
Ivory Coast 20 0 0 2,093 0 NA 0 NA
Cameroon 14 0 0 1,341 0 NA 2 158
Democratic Republic of the Congo 1 0 0 10 0 NA 0 NA
Republic of Congo 4 0 0 791 1 80 0 NA
Colombia 129 27 16 32,265 53 6,739 57 6,785
Costa Rica 15 0 0 2,303 5 202 0 NA
Djibouti 2 0 0 526 0 NA 0 NA
Dominican Republic 17 1 0 1,560 3 184 2 147
Algeria 27 1 0 3,478 1 95 0 NA
Ecuador 18 5 3 2,609 4 535 5 44
Egypt 37 0 1 4,815 5 241 30 716
Ethiopia 4 0 0 64 0 NA 0 NA
Fiji 3 0 0 49 0 NA 0 NA
Gabon 9 0 0 1,024 0 NA 0 NA
Georgia 24 0 0 2,497 1 0 3 171
Ghana 22 0 1 6,474 1 100 14 1,360
Guinea 3 0 0 304 0 NA 0 NA
Gambia 1 0 0 0 1 100 0 NA
Guatemala 15 1 0 3,069 3 400 2 174
Guyana 1 0 0 0 0 NA 0 NA
Honduras 29 2 0 3,617 8 1,310 5 334
Haiti 4 0 0 64 0 NA 0 NA
Indonesia 114 30 3 43,938 20 2,243 76 8,770
India 970 62 524 218,124 253 62,863 428 23,642
Iran 9 0 0 678 2 50 0 NA
Iraq 6 0 2 1,850 1 100 2 250
Jamaica 10 0 0 2,350 0 NA 0 NA
Jordan 41 0 0 9,450 5 238 47 1,078
Kazakhstan 38 1 2 1,356 6 227 0 NA
Kenya 33 3 0 3,920 8 900 15 734
Kyrgyzstan 1 0 0 0 1 100 0 NA
Cambodia 26 1 0 3,904 7 584 2 106
South Korea 1 0 0 300 20 2,192 0 NA
Kosovo 5 0 0 759 0 NA 0 NA
Laos 27 0 0 13,528 3 426 19 2,814
Lebanon 5 0 0 180 3 234 2 241
Liberia 4 0 0 315 0 NA 0 NA
Sri Lanka 75 1 5 2,218 20 3,232 12 242
Lesotho 1 0 0 0 0 NA 0 NA
Morocco 23 5 0 14,126 6 557 25 3,797
Moldova 10 0 0 256 0 NA 0 NA
Madagascar 7 0 0 341 2 140 0 NA
Mexico 215 29 48 58,436 39 3,701 112 8,712
Macedonia 6 1 0 934 1 20 0 NA
Mali 4 0 0 465 0 NA 0 NA
Myanmar 9 1 0 1,467 0 NA 9 506
Montenegro 5 0 0 482 0 NA 0 NA
Mongolia 6 0 0 413 1 94 2 25
Mozambique 18 0 0 1,779 2 46 6 495
Mauritania 1 0 0 26 2 0 0 NA
Malawi 5 0 0 40 1 52 0 NA
Malaysia 72 12 18 21,116 67 6,410 18 3,971
Namibia 7 1 0 125 0 NA 6 120
Niger 2 0 0 11 0 NA 0 NA
Nigeria 51 0 5 9,632 14 1,852 8 555
Nicaragua 11 0 0 1,202 1 100 0 NA
Nepal 36 0 0 1,794 17 1,786 30 166
Pakistan 82 0 3 24,081 23 2,365 39 2,084
Peru 121 4 0 28,876 11 794 38 2,915
Philippines 127 12 5 37,783 50 8,700 62 8,070
Papua New Guinea 1 0 0 71 0 NA 0 NA
Palestine 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA
Romania 110 52 5 9,221 5 500 18 900
Russia 140 40 13 50,154 48 15,414 25 6,462
Rwanda 10 0 0 655 2 200 0 NA
Sudan 6 0 1 1,030 0 NA 0 NA
Senegal 27 0 0 2,781 0 NA 1 22
Solomon Islands 2 0 0 0 0 NA 0 NA
Sierra Leone 5 0 0 195 0 NA 0 NA
El Salvador 9 0 0 1,400 1 100 0 NA
Somalia 2 0 0 235 0 NA 0 NA
Republic of Serbia 13 2 0 4,905 3 265 11 597
Swaziland 1 0 0 5 0 NA 0 NA
Syria 6 1 1 519 1 0 0 NA
Chad 1 0 0 182 0 NA 0 NA
Togo 4 0 0 974 1 0 0 NA
Thailand 105 7 16 27,236 36 5,462 99 12,247
Tajikistan 3 0 0 841 0 NA 0 NA
East Timor 3 0 0 490 0 NA 0 NA
Tunisia 4 0 0 1,728 1 49 0 NA
Turkey 223 8 3 130,719 76 14,486 258 92,826
United Republic of Tanzania 22 0 0 689 1 0 0 NA
Uganda 30 0 0 1,765 4 400 0 NA
Ukraine 99 2 1 5,503 6 2,618 2 16
Uzbekistan 3 0 0 24 0 NA 0 NA
Venezuela 2 0 0 43 1 100 0 NA
Vietnam 91 5 10 15,519 32 3,413 32 3,158
Vanuatu 4 0 0 28 0 NA 0 NA
Yemen 4 0 0 112 0 NA 0 NA
South Africa 109 16 2 22,064 49 3,843 138 11,828
Zambia 10 0 1 1,932 3 31 4 349
Zimbabwe 6 0 0 556 0 NA 4 284
Samoa 2 0 0 47 0 NA 0 NA
Tonga 4 0 0 13 1 300 0 NA
Sao Tome and Principe 2 0 0 50 0 NA 0 NA
Maldives 1 0 0 40 0 NA 0 NA
Mauritius 10 0 0 716 11 213 0 NA
Comoros 2 0 0 74 0 NA 0 NA
Cape Verde 1 0 0 64 0 NA 0 NA
Seychelles 2 0 0 25 0 NA 0 NA
St. Lucia 1 0 0 20 0 NA 0 NA
St. Vincent and the Grenadines 1 0 0 42 0 NA 0 NA

Appendix 2: Interactive Map of Private Subnational Infrastructure Investment

Notes

John Michael LaSalle

2019-12-07